Wednesday 25th of May 2022

when the guardian descends into the pit of hell-shit...


Katharine Viner is editor-in-chief of the Guardian, a position she has held since June 2015. She joined the Guardian as a writer in 1997. She was appointed deputy editor of the Guardian in 2008; launched the award-winning Guardian Australia in 2013; and was also editor of Guardian US, based in New York.


Katharine gave the 2013 AN Smith lecture in journalism at the University of Melbourne, The Rise of the Reader, discussing journalism in the age of the open web, and a speech on Truth and Reality in a Hyper-Connected World as part of the Oxford University Women of Achievement Lecture Series in May 2016. She is the winner of the 2017 Diario Madrid prize for journalism for her long read How Technology Disrupted the Truth

So, are Luke Harding and Dan Collyns in Quito, bits of “technology” that are disrupting the truth, are they telling the truth or are they plain lying for the Guardian? With this article that Viner should have stopped BEFORE publication with demand of KNOWING THE NAME OF SOURCES supplying information to Luke Harding (who could be a pathological liar by all account of the stories he seems to have made up). But Viner could be in the mould of the previous editor, Rusbridger, who FLIPPANTLY claimed: “As for Assange, he hasn’t spent the last few years in exile because of anything to do with publishing. It’s something else completely.” This is BULLSHIT. See:

And Harding goes full speed with cleverly written FAKE NEWSt:

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

In a statement, Manafort denied meeting Assange. He said: “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.”

It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers initially declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits.

In a series of tweets WikiLeaks said Assange and Manafort had not met. Assange described the story as a hoax.

Manafort was jailed this year and was thought to have become a star cooperator in the Mueller inquiry. But on Monday Mueller said Manafort had repeatedly lied to the FBI, despite agreeing to cooperate two months ago in a plea deal. According to a court document, Manafort had committed “crimes and lies” on a “variety of subject matters”.

His defence team says he believes what he has told Mueller to be truthful and has not violated his deal.


Etc, etc… Lies, lies, lies, according to Wikileaks and Manafort. I trust assange to tell the truth. Meanwhile The Guardian is demanding your cash to pay for more lies, lies, lies… unless proper sources are now provided that make me eat my words. I would suggest anyway that all the honest journalists working at The Guardian demand the resignation of Viner and the banishment of Luke Harding to a lonely spot in Antarctica.


Since you’re here …

… I have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian’s main stream newsspeak journalism than ever, but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, it hasn’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our bullshit journalism as openly crappy as we can. So you can see why we need to ask you for help.

The Guardian is editorially opinionated, meaning we set our own crap, based on general MSM crap. Our journalism is free from obvious commercial bias, is only vaguely influenced by politicians, but not by shareholders. No one edits our Editor: OBVIOUSLY, otherwise some of the crap we publish would not see the light of day. No one steers our opinion. Not even ourselves. This is debatable though…. This enables us to give a voice to the voiceless (like Luke Harding, cough-cough), challenge the powerful (those we don’t like, such as Trump) and hold dear those we love (like Hillary)... The Guardian’s editorial anti-Russian stuff makes it blend with others MSM Russophobes in a shrinking media landscape, at a time when fake fact reporting is more critical than ever.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it (we don't), helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support The Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Guardian? You’re kidding, aren’t you?


Quito is the capital city of Ecuador, and, at an elevation of 2,850 metres (9,350 ft) above sea level, is the second-highest capital city in the world after La Paz. It is located in the Guayllabamba river basin, on the eastern slopes of Pichincha, an active volcano in the Andes mountains. With a population of 2.7 million, Quito was designated as the headquarters of the Union of South American Nations.

Is it the place where Luke Harding found sources in the present right wing government of  Ecuador (Is Moreno Moving Ecuador Further to the Right?) to manufacture shit about Assange and Manafort?... We will never know as Harding will carry on pissing on Assange, though the Guardian did not do too badly when releasing Assange’s US’ own documentation about the US deceit…


Or do I know nofin'?....

an anonymously-sourced report...

After the Guardian released an anonymously-sourced report on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s alleged meetings with Julian Assange, Wikileaks says it was asked for comment, but its denial was not included in the article.

The report by Guardian’s Luke Harding, which is light on relevant details and based on unnamed “well-placed sources,” claims that Manafort, who managed US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and is currently in jail on related charges, met with Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange three times during Assange’s ongoing exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

The article says it’s unknown what the two supposedly discussed, but hints heavily that it was related to Russia’s alleged interference in the election – namely the leak of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. Those documents were “stolen by Russian intelligence officers,” the Guardian claims.

As such, Harding writes, the meetings could be of interest to FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has been trying and failing to find definitive proof of Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia.

Except the meetings didn’t happen, Wikileaks says. The whistleblowing website is so adamant about this, it’s willing to bet “a million dollars and its editor’s head” on it.


Read more:

the innocent victim of a setup?...

Twitter went into meltdown mode on Tuesday after the Guardian published a story claiming that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had met numerous times with WikiLeaks cofounder Julian Assange. The explosive report, penned by accused plagiarist Luke Harding, was quickly amended in order to reflect its highly speculative nature. While both Harding and Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner were skewered for the fact-deficient piece –which has yet to be corroborated by another news outlet– a brave, anonymous former CIA officer rose to the Guardian’s defense.

In a piece that could have only been published by Politico, the nameless ex-spook argues that Harding may be the innocent victim of a setup, and was tricked into publishing unsubstantiated claims. The evil villain who duped Harding into not doing his job properly? Hint: Starts with an “R,” ends with “ussia.”

“If this latest story about Manafort and Assange is false … the most logical explanation is that it is an attempt to make Harding look bad,” the piece expertly argues, before diving headlong into a bizarre connect-the-dots conspiracy theory involving RT and … Glenn Greenwald. The prominent journalist was later removed from the piece after our deeply insightful CIA friend fudged the facts about Greenwald’s non-existent work with WikiLeaks. Politico even issued a correction.


Read more:


What a hoot... Read from top. Read also:

the end of the guardian?...


See also:


a work of fiction...

A former senior diplomat at Ecuador’s London embassy has said that the source-based ‘bombshell’ by the Guardian, about alleged meetings between the former Trump campaign manager and the WikiLeaks founder, is a work of fiction.

Fidel Narváez, who had worked at his country’s embassy in London from 2010 to July 2018, said that he was completely unaware of the alleged meetings between Julian Assange and Trump's disgraced former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, that had supposedly taken place on his watch.

In a widely-criticized article by Luke Harding and Dan Collyns in collaboration with Fernando Villavicencio, the Guardian alleged last week that Manafort had gone to London three times over four years prior to the publication of leaked DNC emails.

The scoop drew on “sources” and a document “written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency” and obtained by the Guardian.

Speaking to The Canary on Monday, Narváez, who’d worked as a consul and later as the first secretary at the embassy, argued that it was “simply not possible that Manafort visited the embassy.”

READ MORE: Russia again! Twitter mocks nameless CIA agent who blames Kremlin for dubious Manafort-Assange story

The diplomat, who now lives in the UK, pointed out that one has to jump through legal hoops to get to Assange, which is impossible to do without leaving a trace in the embassy’s log or other documents.

“It is impossible for any visitor to enter the embassy without going through very strict protocols and leaving a clear record: obtaining written approval from the ambassador, registering with security personnel, and leaving a copy of ID,” Narváez stressed.

It’s inconceivable that someone could have sneaked into the embassy unnoticed considering it is “the most surveilled on Earth,” he pointed out, noting that “not only are there cameras positioned on neighboring buildings recording every visitor, but inside the building every movement is recorded with CCTV cameras, 24/7.”

Narváez also took aim at other ‘explosive reports’ on WikiLeaks run by the renowned British paper, including its September story detailing an alleged “plan” by Ecuador to smuggle Assange out of the embassy and into Russia.


Read more:


read from top...

the guardian smears itself with pig shit...


The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns, as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece, doesn’t just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories.

All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding and Collyns – Harding said he’d seen a document, though he didn’t publish one (or even quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves – or perhaps these three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?

Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, The Guardian has “gone too far this time” and its already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.

Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism

Craig Murray calls Harding an “MI6 tool“, but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He’s a wannabe-spook, hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.

To provide important context on Harding’s previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables across the internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.

In addition to continuing The Guardian’s and Villavicencio’s vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding’s financial interests to conflate the pending prosecution of Assange with Russiagate. As this writer previously noted, Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: “Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.” Tying Assange to Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty narrative his book supports.

Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the case, the spectre arises that Harding is working to push for Assange’s arrest, not just on behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book sales.

That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for “months” on the “Assange story,” the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian’s article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez, raises the likelihood that Harding and The Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some.

It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same intelligence establishment that The Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee for.

In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.

The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of the establishment when it comes to Assange.

Elizabeth Vos is a Co-Founder and Editor in Chief at Disobedient Media.

Read more:


Read from top...



crowy chadwick...

The name Claas Relotius recently joined those of Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair in the list of reporters whose deceptions massively harmed esteemed publications, and journalism more generally. Similarities in the cases offer lessons.

Last December the prestigious German magazine Der Spiegel revealed the extent of the fraud of Relotius, one of its star writers. Disclosures continue, but it is already clear that large parts of his award-winning reporting were simply made up...


Read more:


In this article, Paul Chadwick, tells us: Fraudulent reporters harm us all. Vigilance is essential..." and is seeing the straw in Der Spiegel's eye but not the 4be2 or the oak truck in the heart of The Guardian.  Yes Paul, between The Guardian's "vigilance" and the story above from top — for which there has been NO APOLOGIES, nor denial, we CANNOT TRUST THE GUARDIAN, until The Guardian apologises or recant it. We know we can trust Der Spiegel, to the point as it has fully apologised for its latest cock-up. On certain opinion piece it can't help itself but to bash Russia, but that is expected from the mediocre Western media all around — of which The Guardian is often an examplar rubbish representative.

censorship at the guardian?


Rather more revealing was all three women revealing that neither the prime minister nor the whips’ office had made any effort to dissuade them from defecting. They just weren’t that bothered whether they stayed or left. More trouble than they were worth. Better to have fewer of the right kind of MPs. The true believers. The Tories and Labour were a lot closer than they liked to think.

We made a choice…

… and we want to tell you about it. Our journalism now reaches record numbers around the world and more than a million people have supported our reporting. We continue to face financial challenges but, unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall. We want our journalism to remain accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford.

This is The Guardian’s model for open, independent journalism: free for those who can’t afford it, supported by those who can. Readers’ support powers our work, safeguarding our essential editorial independence. This means the responsibility of protecting independent journalism is shared, enabling us all to feel empowered to bring about real change in the world. Your support gives Guardian journalists the time, space and freedom to report with tenacity and rigour, to shed light where others won’t. It emboldens us to challenge authority and question the status quo. And by keeping all of our journalism free and open to all, we can foster inclusivity, diversity, make space for debate, inspire conversation – so more people have access to accurate information with integrity at its heart.


Read more:

From OffGuardian:


The following comments – sent in to us by a reader – were censored by The Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did they breach?



Read more:


If this is true, the Guardian would be doing "censorship" of a particular kind... A soft anti-Corbyn campaign to suit a particular agenda...? Including making him look like he's sleeping with the enemy in the article "Labour and Tories, for once, were a lot closer than they like to think" above...


Who knows. The posting by "deadpoet" could be a fake "posting/rejection" but the whole information in the post is quite accurate. As we know as well, when posting "articles" that are too long in "conversation" on website, the text has to be broken down in bits as the comment section of sites limit the comments to a set amount of words. This is why "deadpoet" had to post 5 pages separately. Gus has been there before with this capers...


Read from top.